[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What if God doesn’t have a “divine plan” and his “will” is just the design of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths?[/quote]
Every supposed prophet that ever came to us directly fought against the designs of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths.
They didn’t all do this literally, but even when words / ideas were the only weapons, “fight” is the most accurate word I can think of as they were “targeted” by the people in power.[/quote]
Ah yes, jihad…I know that word.
It is my belief that all of the atrocities of human history are the result of a bunch of psychologically ill, power hungry sociopaths fighting each other for whatever it is they think they need control over.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:<< It is Trib’s belief that all of the atrocities of human history are the result of a bunch of sinners refusing to live for the glory of God.[/quote]I gave ya a free one there.
Thus saith Sparky. It’s settled boys n girls. Wadda relief. See the entire 38th chapter of the book of Job, but here is a sample edited just for you: [quote]1-Then the Lord answered out of the whirlwind and said:
2-"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
3-Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]
LOL…The gospel according to bigflamer: “Religion is a bunch of bullshit, boys and girls; relax, go forth to live your lives free of the shackles of religious superstition.”
“Oh wearisome condition of humanity! Born under one law, to another bound: Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity; Created sick, commanded to be sound.” -Richard Fulke Greville
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]
Bullshit[/quote]
In which war have you been in active combat?[/quote]
This ^^^^^^ has no bearing on the discussion. But to answer your question, none. A little bit of research on your part however, will direct you to instances of combat having the opposite effect that believers so often like to make in their “foxhole believer” bit. I assure you, there are atheists in foxholes.
[/quote]
It is relevant because you said it was bullshit. That leads one to believe you have seen active combat and remained atheist through out. Otherwise, how would you know? I know people who have seen real actual combat, and none of them nor do they know of anybody in that situation that is atheist. Now, maybe there are, I don’t actually know, but the evidence is scant. [/quote]
I didn’t have to see combat to read the accounts of service men and women who came through it and renounced religion. It’s a bullshit comment on it’s face.
You can say that atheists in foxholes are a minority, and you’d probably be right, but that has everything to do with atheists being a minority in general. More soldiers and Marines go into combat as believers, therefore more come out as believers. This is simple logic, patty cakes, do try to keep up.
Now, if you do some research, you’ll find examples of fighting men who seen shitty combat and renounced religion. What do you say to that?
Saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes, is christian bullshit logic, and I’m throwing the bullshit flag on it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Now, did you have something of value to add to the discussion, or are you just here for the drive by ad hominem?[/quote]
Actually, that wasn’t an ad hominem, and I have plenty of discussing going on. But if you drop other asshat one liners I may drive by again.[/quote]
Actually, it was an ad hominen argument, in support of a fallacious statement. You do understand what an ad hominem argument is, right?
[/quote]
No because there is no such thing as an ‘ad hominem arguemt’ ad hominems are fallacies. I was merely pointing out that your certainty was rooted in personal experience. I was not saying you were wrong because you aren’t qualified to make the statement.[/quote]
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument to the man”), is 1) a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself; 2) an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs. [/i]
Please acknowledge the fact that there actually ARE atheists in foxholes, and that you subsequently were wrong. You called into question my personal experiences without actually attacking the argument, guess what that was?
Your shipment of fail…has arrived. LOL
[/quote]
It seems likely there would have been atheists in foxholes at some point. However, you’re counter point was one of precise knowledge. But I will concede I was wrong here.
LOL…The gospel according to bigflamer: “Religion is a bunch of bullshit, boys and girls; relax, go forth to live your lives free of the shackles of religious superstition.”
Thus saith Sparky.
You’re welcome Tirib.
[/quote]They’ll do that all by themselves Sparky. This is called sin. Nobody needs either permission or to be taught. It is our nature. Born into bondage, clanking through life covered in chains, all the while snickering over how free we are. Eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. God be true and every man a liar.
[quote]pat wrote:
If God exists, religion still may or may not be relevant, but if he does not then relgion is most definitely irrelevant.
To deal with it in a relevant authentic matter, you have to deal with God’s existence, otherwise, nothing else being discusses matters one tiny bit. [/quote]
If you hold the existence of God to be the only redeeming quality of religions, then yes without God those religions are irrelevant. If you believe that religions carry other redeeming qualities outside of God, then without God they are still very relevant. [/quote]
No, they are completely meaningless in every way. It then compels with no point.
[quote]pat wrote:
If God exists, religion still may or may not be relevant, but if he does not then relgion is most definitely irrelevant.
To deal with it in a relevant authentic matter, you have to deal with God’s existence, otherwise, nothing else being discusses matters one tiny bit. [/quote]
If you hold the existence of God to be the only redeeming quality of religions, then yes without God those religions are irrelevant. If you believe that religions carry other redeeming qualities outside of God, then without God they are still very relevant. [/quote]
No, they are completely meaningless in every way. It then compels with no point.[/quote]
That’s too bad. I’m of the opinion that with or without the inclusion of God there are excellent teachings found in religions.
[quote]pat wrote:
The it’s not about agreeing or not agreeing it’s about the logic not supporting it. You cannot have an infinite regress because it begs the question, which is circular reasoning which invalidates it as an option. [/quote]
Unless you apply ‘God logic’. Then anything goes, right?
Perhaps the more appropriate question is how did it come to be? or what caused it? The problem your having still is that all these things you describe are still constrained by a common thread, causation. If the entities you speak are uncaused, and exist for no reason and are dependent on nothing, then you have a point. If you cannot, then you don’t.
I wasn’t arguing for ‘God’ there, I was trying to describe ‘it’ to some degree.
That’s still a lower ‘dimension’ than what I am talking about. If this dimension, is the Uncaused-cause how is it so. But the dimension part of it would still be a caused entity. There is nothing to personify, really.
[quote]
So, this brings us back to the original problem. An infinite amount of time draped over an infinite amount of energy is already enough to guarantee the existence of our universe. Given this, what evidence do you have to back up the claim that this force is not only the concious creator of the universe, but YOUR concious creator of the universe, specifically?
Oh, that reminds me. You used the wrong “your”… every time you used it. [/quote]
First that’s not correct, the universe as we know it, is finite. There is a finite amount of energy in the universe otherwise we wouldn’t be able to measure how much there is. The universe’s entropy is increasing. Something it would not be able to do if it were infinite. So the universe is not inifinite. It would not matter if it were, it’s still dependent and that’s the key.
You have to think about the argument itself to understand how the Necessary Being would create. It could not have been compelled which means it had to do it of it’s own ‘will’ so to speak.
And he is not mine, I don’t know what you mean by that at all.
So if we allow the contingency argument. By its very nature it makes God eternal versus everlasting. While this doesn’t say much vis a vis the contingency argument itself it certainly causes problems for any work that would present God’s acts as a narrative.
Making god everlasting though istead causes some other issues which would likely lead to some problems with any system that proposes an unlimited god.
Can you lay out a version of the contingency argument in a form like:
1 Premise
2 Premise
3 Answer to possible objection to premise 1
4 Conclusion 1
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What if God doesn’t have a “divine plan” and his “will” is just the design of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths?[/quote]
Every supposed prophet that ever came to us directly fought against the designs of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths.
They didn’t all do this literally, but even when words / ideas were the only weapons, “fight” is the most accurate word I can think of as they were “targeted” by the people in power.[/quote]
Ah yes, jihad…I know that word.
It is my belief that all of the atrocities of human history are the result of a bunch of psychologically ill, power hungry sociopaths fighting each other for whatever it is they think they need control over.[/quote]
Let me see if I’m understanding you…
Are you saying that all these supposed prophets are actually themselves a bunch of psychologically ill, power hungry sociopaths?
[quote]groo wrote:
So if we allow the contingency argument. By its very nature it makes God eternal versus everlasting. While this doesn’t say much vis a vis the contingency argument itself it certainly causes problems for any work that would present God’s acts as a narrative.
Making god everlasting though istead causes some other issues which would likely lead to some problems with any system that proposes an unlimited god.
Can you lay out a version of the contingency argument in a form like:
1 Premise
2 Premise
3 Answer to possible objection to premise 1
4 Conclusion 1
Etc?[/quote]
This is a classical form of the argument. Now what’s important to illustrate it’s not a singular argument, it’s really a form of argument, very much like a mathematical formula, but the answer is always the same. Let’s break it down:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
So for this, all it’s saying here is that stuff exists. You can drill it down to whatever level you want but something exists. This is eliminates the issue of dealing with a specific object of existence, just anything so long as it exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
Basically, everything that exists has a reason for it’s existence. It’s dependent on something else. This goes for physical matter as well as metaphysical objects.
3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
This says that things cannot be their own explanation. I.E. It cannot be circular. It’s not explained well but what is being established it that the infinite regress cannot be applied, because infinite regresses don’t exist. The reason they don’t exist is because it necessarily begs the question at some point. The argument maker’s trust the reader already understands this fact. I think it would be wise to include it as a premiseâ?¦.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
-This says for whatever ‘object’ you claim exists, it’s existence is either dependent on another something else, unless it’s the uncaused-cause. Then question doesn’t apply by definition.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
This reinforces premise 3, though it’s not entirely necessary, but it reiterates that infinite regress cannot apply.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
I would say it’s a little poorly worded. But if you were to follow an objects existence all the way up the causal chain, via contingency. You will eventually hit an Uncaused-case, or Necessary Being. It’s true because the infinite regress is fallacious. Like I said, an infinite regress must and will include a begging of the question. This is not the same as saying infinity doesn’t exist. It clearly does at least in metaphysics if not in material matter, but nothing can regress infinitely. The only solution to the issue is to have something that can exist without have being begotten. If you had an infinitely regressing starting point, nothing could have ever started.
[quote]groo wrote:
So if we allow the contingency argument. By its very nature it makes God eternal versus everlasting. While this doesn’t say much vis a vis the contingency argument itself it certainly causes problems for any work that would present God’s acts as a narrative.
Making god everlasting though istead causes some other issues which would likely lead to some problems with any system that proposes an unlimited god.
Can you lay out a version of the contingency argument in a form like:
1 Premise
2 Premise
3 Answer to possible objection to premise 1
4 Conclusion 1
Etc?[/quote]
This is a classical form of the argument. Now what’s important to illustrate it’s not a singular argument, it’s really a form of argument, very much like a mathematical formula, but the answer is always the same. Let’s break it down:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
So for this, all it’s saying here is that stuff exists. You can drill it down to whatever level you want but something exists. This is eliminates the issue of dealing with a specific object of existence, just anything so long as it exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
Basically, everything that exists has a reason for it’s existence. It’s dependent on something else. This goes for physical matter as well as metaphysical objects.
3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
This says that things cannot be their own explanation. I.E. It cannot be circular. It’s not explained well but what is being established it that the infinite regress cannot be applied, because infinite regresses don’t exist. The reason they don’t exist is because it necessarily begs the question at some point. The argument maker’s trust the reader already understands this fact. I think it would be wise to include it as a premiseâ?¦.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
-This says for whatever ‘object’ you claim exists, it’s existence is either dependent on another something else, unless it’s the uncaused-cause. Then question doesn’t apply by definition.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
This reinforces premise 3, though it’s not entirely necessary, but it reiterates that infinite regress cannot apply.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
I would say it’s a little poorly worded. But if you were to follow an objects existence all the way up the causal chain, via contingency. You will eventually hit an Uncaused-case, or Necessary Being. It’s true because the infinite regress is fallacious. Like I said, an infinite regress must and will include a begging of the question. This is not the same as saying infinity doesn’t exist. It clearly does at least in metaphysics if not in material matter, but nothing can regress infinitely. The only solution to the issue is to have something that can exist without have being begotten. If you had an infinitely regressing starting point, nothing could have ever started.[/quote]
Overall I don’t have a ton of problem with what you are saying here.
Some things are your use of “being” instead of “thing”.
There is no need to go beyond the universe in the chain. Simply because all the objects of a set require something doesn’t mean the set itself does.
We can’t say anything about contingency outside of a universe. Its possible that things outside the universe aren’t contigent.
Also these things (I know you know this) don’t say anything about the nature of a god.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What if God doesn’t have a “divine plan” and his “will” is just the design of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths?[/quote]
Every supposed prophet that ever came to us directly fought against the designs of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths.
They didn’t all do this literally, but even when words / ideas were the only weapons, “fight” is the most accurate word I can think of as they were “targeted” by the people in power.[/quote]
Ah yes, jihad…I know that word.
It is my belief that all of the atrocities of human history are the result of a bunch of psychologically ill, power hungry sociopaths fighting each other for whatever it is they think they need control over.[/quote]
Let me see if I’m understanding you…
Are you saying that all these supposed prophets are actually themselves a bunch of psychologically ill, power hungry sociopaths?[/quote]
Deluded mostly and easily taken advantage of by the sociopaths but yes some of them are also sociopaths.
Religion is always corrupted by power lust - never mind the fact that it is rooted in superstition.
[quote]groo wrote:
So if we allow the contingency argument. By its very nature it makes God eternal versus everlasting. While this doesn’t say much vis a vis the contingency argument itself it certainly causes problems for any work that would present God’s acts as a narrative.
Making god everlasting though istead causes some other issues which would likely lead to some problems with any system that proposes an unlimited god.
Can you lay out a version of the contingency argument in a form like:
1 Premise
2 Premise
3 Answer to possible objection to premise 1
4 Conclusion 1
Etc?[/quote]
This is a classical form of the argument. Now what’s important to illustrate it’s not a singular argument, it’s really a form of argument, very much like a mathematical formula, but the answer is always the same. Let’s break it down:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
So for this, all it’s saying here is that stuff exists. You can drill it down to whatever level you want but something exists. This is eliminates the issue of dealing with a specific object of existence, just anything so long as it exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
Basically, everything that exists has a reason for it’s existence. It’s dependent on something else. This goes for physical matter as well as metaphysical objects.
3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
This says that things cannot be their own explanation. I.E. It cannot be circular. It’s not explained well but what is being established it that the infinite regress cannot be applied, because infinite regresses don’t exist. The reason they don’t exist is because it necessarily begs the question at some point. The argument maker’s trust the reader already understands this fact. I think it would be wise to include it as a premiseÃ?¢?Ã?¦.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
-This says for whatever ‘object’ you claim exists, it’s existence is either dependent on another something else, unless it’s the uncaused-cause. Then question doesn’t apply by definition.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
This reinforces premise 3, though it’s not entirely necessary, but it reiterates that infinite regress cannot apply.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
I would say it’s a little poorly worded. But if you were to follow an objects existence all the way up the causal chain, via contingency. You will eventually hit an Uncaused-case, or Necessary Being. It’s true because the infinite regress is fallacious. Like I said, an infinite regress must and will include a begging of the question. This is not the same as saying infinity doesn’t exist. It clearly does at least in metaphysics if not in material matter, but nothing can regress infinitely. The only solution to the issue is to have something that can exist without have being begotten. If you had an infinitely regressing starting point, nothing could have ever started.[/quote]
Overall I don’t have a ton of problem with what you are saying here.
Some things are your use of “being” instead of “thing”.
There is no need to go beyond the universe in the chain. Simply because all the objects of a set require something doesn’t mean the set itself does.
We can’t say anything about contingency outside of a universe. Its possible that things outside the universe aren’t contingent.
[/quote]
Actually, if your talking about the physical universe, then yes we can talk about things outside the physical universe. The argument allows for a multitude of universe manifestations. The reason it’s not possible for things to be non-contingent even outside this universe isn’t a matter of knowing the ‘nature’ of a thing to determine that, it’s that logically, only one thing can be uncaused.
Try to conceive of a non-contingent object that’s not the Uncaused-cause. The thing itself is it’s own explanation and that simply cannot be. That’s a reality in or out of the universe.
[quote]
Also these things (I know you know this) don’t say anything about the nature of a god. [/quote]
If you are talking about religious nature, there is very little you can know about that aspect. But you can know ‘stuff’ about the Uncaused-cause, but trying to understand what it must be to be able to be what it is. For instance, an uncaused-cause, must definitionally be uncaused. Which means that nothing can cause or compel it. It has to cause without cause. It cannot be beholden to it’s creation therefore it cannot be bound by time, or any other affect, it’s eternal by definition…Things like that.
So no, you cannot garner a “God of Abraham” from the argument. But this God of Abraham claims the same properties that the Uncaused-cause has. So the substance of the God of the bible claims the same things and more.
There is the issue, though, by logic alone, you cannot say that the Biblical account is true. Yes, it’s talking about the Creator of Being, yet, it may or may not be accurate from a philosophical stand point.
